Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to classify the land as dry land/purayidam in the basic tax register and revenue records in terms of the judgment in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333). Petitioners property situated in survey 198/1 of Alangad Village having an extent of 8.44 Ares is admittedly not included in the draft data bank. Petitioners have also obtained a building permit from the local panchayath to construct a residential building. Petitioner relies on Ext.P9 and submits that there is a kudikidappu in the property and this property has been treated as dry land long back. Writ petitioners also relied on basic tax receipt issued by the Village Officer. The petitioners also submit that in basic tax receipt, it is classified as purayidam and they are entitled for a declaration.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is stated that basic tax receipt has been issued on account of mistake. In basic tax register, the land is recorded as nilam. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioners cannot use the land for other purposes without obtaining orders from Collector under KLUO.
3. The Collector has power under KLUO to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the property is reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC 499] held as follows:
“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”
4. In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.
5. It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) that even if the land was reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO.
6. The petitioners property is seen as dry land and converted before Act 28 of 2008. Ext.P12 shows there are coconut trees aged 35 years. In view of the facts that it is not utilized for any food crops defined in KLUO, necessary permission shall be granted to the petitioners to utilize the land for other purposes. Accordingly, petitioners shall approach the Revenue Divisional officer, Fort Kochi with an application to utilize the land for other purposes within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam shall grant permission to the petitioners to utilize land for other purposes within four weeks from the date of receipt of the application.
The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/03/12/14